SA80 replacement.

[telecat]

Looks like it will need to be replaced before 2020. Essentially because it is wearing out. Given that 5.56mm is not proving a great all rounder and 7.62 NATO is heavy and not as advanced as some "modern" ammo the US are likely to switch before 2025. The Desert Tech MDR looks a good replacement. Could be built in the UK. Switchable calibre, ambidextrous cartridge exit and Bullpup.

http://deserttech.com/mdr.php

[telecat]

I believe that the US have been disappointed by the performance of the 5.56. They have played around with the loading but the round does not "tumble" as well as hoped when it hits a target. The UK have altered the Bullet a little and the US have played very close to the wind by having a bullet that fragments a little. The main criticism is that the combat range is about 300m in the M16/M4 and up to 500M with the SA80. At that range the covering "effect" is not good whereas a 7.62 round can be "heard" when hitting targets. It's a theme that goes back to Vietnam where US soldiers could not take "cover" behind trees that the Vietcong could. As such it's felt that a 6.5mm Grendal or 6.8mm round would cover both bases while still being lighter to carry than the 7.62.

As for the SA80 the version you are referring to is the L95 L2 TES which the culmination of several updates including the Magpul Polymer Magazine with a Window, New ECLAN Specter site, New Picatinny Rails and Hand grip. A number of parts are now Titanium and the Rifle is 1KG lighter than it used to be.

[telecat]

To me the M4 is pretty reliable these days but a bit of a dead end. As it stands the US Military tried to increase the range and lethality of the 5.56 by increasing the load in the bullet. The M855A1 round increased the Pressure in the barrel from 55,000 psi to 62,000 psi. Unfortunately the wear rate of the barrel and the Premature failure rate of the Bolt and other parts increased as well, shortening the life of the Rifle.

[telecat]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Could not a small very high speed round be practical? I well recall reading an article about a US custom round used by (I think) Wetherby. If I recal correctly, the calibre was 17/223 and had a muzzle velocity in excess of 4000fps. Hitting power was huge for such a small projectile.

Is it possible fragmentation be an issue, or such a small round be overly susceptible to deflection, twigs, etc?

Penetration would be good but I suspect the "impact" wouldn't. The 5.56 suffers in windy conditions been more easily being blown off course as well so a 1.7mm would probably still have those problems. It's a bit like being hit by a lot of needles. They will kill you but slowly. Afgahnistan was a bit like "World War Z" in that the target would not go down if hit by several bullets. You needed Heavier bullets or Volley Fire to be effective. Hence the Taliban could tie you down with combatants still firing well after the point at which most soldiers would be being pulled off the battle field to keep them alive.

[telecat]

Cheese Mechanic said:

telecat said:

Penetration would be good but I suspect the "impact" wouldn't. The 5.56 suffers in windy conditions been more easily being blown off course as well so a 1.7mm would probably still have those problems. It's a bit like being hit by a lot of needles. They will kill you but slowly. Afgahnistan was a bit like "World War Z" in that the target would not go down if hit by several bullets. You needed Heavier bullets or Volley Fire to be effective. Hence the Taliban could tie you down with combatants still firing well after the point at which most soldiers would be being pulled off the battle field to keep them alive.

Think its lost in translation , I meant .17 as in of an inch,as against 1.7mill, slightly smaller than the the traditional 177 air rifle bore.

The article I read, concerning the round showed dramatic effect on tree branches and all. Having said that, I suppose its not far removed from the 4 mill round being mentioned.

Aploogies, looking at it I should have picked that up myself.

[telecat]

In Two Thousand and five the Unit price for the M4 supplied to the US Military was $1032 Per rifle. Today now they "own" the design the price is about $670. A Typical AK-47 Is between $450 and $1250 to civilians. A Romanian Knock off could be bought for $350 in 2008. It is reckoned that the AK in Africa can be bought for as little as a goat. However how good it would be is another matter. Those made by Kalashnikov Concern are sold to the Russian government at $160 which seems to be a considerable discount.

The AK has a Cycle of 6,000 to 15,000 rounds before needing a barrel replacement. It's fiddly and difficult. The M4 is in the range of 15,000 to 50,000 rounds. It's pretty easy to strip down and re-assemble too. It comes down to the M4 and Western rifles can be "fixed" and are easy to strip down. In many respects the AK is throw away when broken.

[telecat]

Ayahuasca said:

Time to bring back the tried and tested bang stick, the 'right arm of the free world'.

Essentially buy the FN SCAR-H would be the replacement for the SLR. Generally it is considered pretty reliable and it is also available as a 5.56 SCAR-L.

[telecat]

DMN said:

Surely the most sensible option (and probably one of the cheapest.....) is to buy the Canadian C8 Carbine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7_rifle

Its already in service with several branches of the Armed Forces including the SAS and Royal Marines.

Good in close quarters but that's the problem. The L85A3 is a better distance weapon which is where the M4 series fall down. The accuracy and "punch" just are not as good going out over 300M. Basically US forces Bought the SCAR-H and UK the LMT LM308mws or L129A1 to supplement the M4/SA80.

The idea is to replace both. the 5.56 is just not powerful enough whereas the 7.62 is too heavy for general Infantry use and rifles using it are not suited to close combat. It's why 6mm to 7mm ammo is being looked at.

[telecat]

DMN said:

Lefty said:

Not if they're trying to move away from 5.56 it's not.

Yes very true. However I doubt the money for such a change is there, even if the will is.

Logistically they are buying 50 calibre, 7.62 and 5.56. The US Army have also tried increasing the lethality of the 5.56 which has proven to cause problems with M16/M4's not designed for the increased pressure of the modified round. If they can combine the two lighter rounds then there are savings to be had.

[telecat]

Given the cock up on the G36 I think it will be very carefully looked at first.